Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Stuart Prescott writes ("Re: [PROPOSAL v2] Orphaning another maintainer's packages"):
> I'm not suggesting that VAC status should be public information, but blanket 
> statements that we know if maintainers are on VAC (or MIA or whatever) are 
> wrong for 50% of our maintainers as are statements that potential salvagers 
> have this information.

This is a good point.  Another reason why the post-ITO waiting period
should be much longer than two weeks.

Ian.